Romans? A Letter or a Lecture?

In our fellowship — by God’s help — we wrapped up Acts last week. We’ve now dived into Romans, aiming for 3–4 chapters a week with a group discussion during our Sunday meet-up.

Now I must confess: this letter — sorry, book — isn’t my favourite. And honestly, I doubt it was a favourite to its original readers either. For starters, it’s long. I asked ChatGPT, and according to the NKJV, we’re dealing with 9,447 words. That’s a lot. Was Paul writing a letter or applying for a theological doctorate? I pity the scribe.

Secondly, some scholars still argue about who actually wrote it. Many say it couldn't have been Paul because it doesn't fit in his Acts missionary trips. I hate arguments. The fact that our predecessors couldn’t agree unsettles me.

Thirdly, let’s be honest — teaching through a long, debated document is a heavy responsibility. But, our leader didn’t consult me when choosing this next book, so my opinion didn’t count. And so, here we are again… studying Romans.

Every time I hear "Romans," I can’t help but remember the saying: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” Maybe they were a romantic lot. Sadly, this book is anything but romantic. It’s loaded with big words, deep theology, and serious discourse.

I personally think it was written by Paul. I think he didn’t introduce himself at the start because he had never met this audience. Asserting authority too early might have sounded arrogant — and Paul, though bold, was wise. But maybe you don’t even care who wrote it. Bora handwriting ilisomeka, right?

As I revisited the opening chapters this week, I really loved Paul’s posture towards the Jews among the Gentiles. He’s basically telling them:

> “Stop thinking you’re superior just because you were circumcised. These Gentile believers may not carry your badge of heritage, but that doesn’t make them less.”

Yes, the gospel came first to the Jews — but that doesn’t mean they’re better than everyone else.

Let me paint the background a bit. The Church in Rome was most likely started by travelling Jews — probably businessmen chasing better trade. These are some of the folks James addressed when he wrote to “the twelve tribes scattered abroad.” So in short, hii ni church ya majuu, and it’s getting a letter from a local Pasi/Passy from the village.

Historians suggest that though this fellowship began with Jews (and names like Priscilla, Aquila, and Timothy come to mind), it had slowly come under Gentile leadership. Picture that: You send saints to start a fellowship. They build it, move away, and then… they're barely remembered. Others take over, the original starters return, expecting honour — but instead, they find they have no say. Their titles carry no weight. Ouch. That's how this tension started — and that's what this letter is addressing.

The Jews were essentially saying:

> “This gospel is ours. The Holy Spirit is ours. You Gentiles should recognize that and give us credit.”

Paul — whom I still insist is the author — doesn’t fully disagree. He actually affirms their heritage:

> “Yes, the Word came to you first. God entrusted you with His oracles.”

But then he adds a critical footnote:

> “Having a head start doesn’t guarantee a win.”

If you start the race but stop halfway, you will be overtaken. And that’s what was happening. The Jews kept boasting in their keeping of the law, assuming that gave them superiority. But Paul corrects them:

> “If you keep the law of works but fail the law of faith, you’re no different from any other sinner.”

It’s like baptism: If you're baptized but live in sin, your baptism means nothing. You’d be better off not baptized but living righteously.

That said, the law is not bad. On the contrary — the law is good. Because it is through the law that we realize we’re sinners in need of grace.

More on Romans; https://mapstage.blogspot.com/2024/11/romans.html